Talk:2018 Winter Olympics

Ticket Prices

The article says the highest price for events is $776, and cites an article to that effect.

But note that the prices for the top seats in the Men's Hockey Gold Medal game are being sold here for $976.85

https://www.cosport.com/olympics/tickets.aspx?SportID=86&EventDate=2/25/2018

I presume they changed their minds about the price after that article was published.

Unfortunately I believe this ticket-sale page is temporary and will not be available as soon as the game is over or is sold out. I don't know of any long-term cites for this ticket price. I just tried recording the page in Internet Archive, and the javascript to bring up the price didn't work in the archived version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.225.205.99 (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it might be OK to remove this section altogether once the citations expire. There was nothing said about ticket prices in the 2014 Olympic Games article. Rodney Baggins (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Nigerian bobsled

Wow, the CBC, NYpost and many others are reporting that Nigeria has qualified for the olympics in women's bobsled. See here for the rules of qualification (specifically the time frame and point 'C' about minimum requirements) and then see here for the official rankings. Hopefully logic and a little common sense should indicate that there is a problem with the reporting, however if there is a specific statement from their NOC or from the IBSF then that would be valuable to the discussion. At this point it appears (to me) that when they achieved one of the minimum requirements there was some kind of a celebration that got badly misinterpreted.18abruce (talk) 18:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

And the Guardian got it right, there is hope for the world.18abruce (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It would appear that they are "as good as qualified" according to recent reports, along with Ghana in skeleton. I do believe it is better to leave it until qualifying is done though, and it is then certain.18abruce (talk) 19:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

qualified number of athletes

this was previously discussed and consensus was to not list them until numbers are more definite (see the archive on this page). I understand that some countries we can be pretty sure, but why do we want to be constantly arguing over this. Hockey, Curling, Short track speed skating, and figure skating have confirmed totals, nothing else belongs here yet. And since it is unlikely (possible i guess) that no country only has qualifiers in those sports, it just serves no purpose to list totals.18abruce (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Add facts about Oylmpic boycotts due to eating dogs and costs of games and low ticket sales (RfC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

S korea is hiding cafes where dogs and cats are served.Juror1 (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Juror1 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of GADFLY46. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

provide a source that explains the issue, and present it rationally, so we can discuss the issue then.18abruce (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-Koreans-and-Chinese-eat-dog-meat

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/28/south-korea-closes-biggest-dog-meat-market-in-run-up-to-olympics Juror1 (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Juror1 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of GADFLY46. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Although only a small proportion of South Koreans regularly eat dog meat, thousands of restaurants and health food stores continue to sell it, mainly in soups and stews, or as a herb-infused tonic, according to International Aid for Korean Animals. International criticism of dog meat consumption intensified during the 2002 football World Cup, which South Korea jointly hosted with Japan. Some campaigners have launched online petitions calling for a boycott of next year’s Pyeongchang Olympics unless the country bans the eating of dog mea 453,000 HAVE SIGNED THE PROTEST PETITION at CHANGE.ORG Juror1 (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Juror1 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of GADFLY46. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

no Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The sources presented do not confirm your assertion (even after modifying it). There certainly is some controversy, but I am not convinced it belongs on this page.18abruce (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

it is a world wide issue (450,000 signers ) about 2018 winter olympics , only place it belongs is on this page!

WHAT ASSERTION? THERE IS A WORLDWIDE BOYCOTT OF THE OLYMPICS AND YOU HIDE IT YOU great deleting monitor factor (GDMF) AFTER I PROVIDED proof Juror1 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the first I am hearing about it, some "worldwide" boycott. Please stop adding this to Wikipedia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

first time? you dont read the news?

There are wikipedia pages that discuss this issue (like this one), it is up to you to present a rational argument why it belongs on this particular page. Your assertion that people are eating pets in obviously incorrect and completely unrelated to the sources you presented. Your modified assertion that South Korea is hiding cafes where dogs and cats are served does not seem validated by the sources either. A nation that is providing press releases on the issue is not doing a good job of hiding it. Finally I am having a hard time understanding how calling names and making up things (in caps no less) is meant to convince anyone.18abruce (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

the item is not about eating dogs ( or cattle or tofu) , it is about a BOYCOTT! is it a boycott that will exist after 2018? NO is it a boycott about their cards? no google (you know what that is? ) words olympics and boycott - facebook comes up (you know what facebook is , how many users they have, how many more users than wikipedia) and change.org comes up . first tier

@Juror1: If delegations were boycotting then it would be notable. But these are individual viewers, not Olympians. Don't get us wrong, we aren't supporting the whole dog/cat meat fiasco, but it is not related to the Games themselves. The Games are the perfect time for activists to protest practices in the host country, that does not have anything to do with the actual Olympics. Jith12 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

not talking about athletes boycotting, its about 450,000 not buying tickets and TICKET SALES are down. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/09/olympic-ticket-sales-fall-short-for-pyeongchang-games.html

The issue of countries going into debt has been 40 an issue with Olympics BEFORE wiki ever existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juror1 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

http://fortune.com/2016/08/10/olympics-financial-disasters @Juror1: The article that you linked to makes no mention of the dog meat situation. As it is the dog meat situation is not specifically related to the Games. If the Games are specifically impacted from an athletics standpoint then we can re-activate this topic. Right now there is no educational value in including information about an unofficial movement. Jith12 (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

450,00 IS NOT unoffical IT IS MORE THAN ALL THE TICKET SALES Juror1 (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Juror1 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of GADFLY46. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

So people didn't buy tickets who probably weren't going to anyway? I didn't buy tickets to the Olympics, and I also oppose eating dog meat. Does that mean I'm "boycotting" anything? No, since I wasn't about to buy tickets to an Olympic Games halfway around the world anyway. How many of those 450,000 people actually would buy tickets were it not for the dog meat? Any of them? More than a very small number? Probably not. Smartyllama (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Juror1: I understand that you are frustrated. I too am disappointed by the fact that people are still eating dog meat. Despite this, multiple editors have established consensus that it is not appropriate to include mention of this movement in the article. However, since you are adamant about including text about the movement I will take this topic to RfC. This way we can have more opinions and reach an official conclusion. This will be the most effective and uncontroversial method to end this . Please include any further discussion in the "Threaded discussion" section.

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear opposition, closing early on account of the above sockpuppetry. Primefac (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Should the "Concerns and controversies" section of this article mention protests against the dog and cat meat market in South Korea in the lead up to the 2018 Winter Olympics in PyeongChang? Jith12 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose, the dog and cat meat market in South Korea is not directly related to the 2018 Winter Olympics and therefore mentioning protests against the market in the lead up to the Olympics is unwarranted in an article about the Games themselves. Jith12 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose; I am intrigued by the CBS article, and the Guardian article, but am unconvinced that this is the page to explore and explain the issue. This page could be expanded to discuss recent developments, perhaps by comparing effects of the 1988 olympics and 2002 world cup, where similar issues arose.18abruce (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Completely irrelevant. It belongs on the appropriate page, and this isn't it. There's no boycott, people who probably wouldn't buy tickets anyway say they're not, and sales happen to be down anyway. Totally irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (Via RFC) Whilst I'd be interested in a separate article covering the generalised controversy regarding the Dog Meat market in South Korea (User:18abruce makes a good point), I feel that going into much detail in this article would be skirting WP:UNDUE. If it must be mentioned in this article, in my view it should be limited to a single sentence with a wikilink to the aformentioned more general article. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 17:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Because the Games are high profile and represent considerable economic risk for the country, numerous groups will seek to use them as a point of leverage for their causes. While it is true that issue is not directly relevant to the Olympics, this is irrelevant. What is relevant (from Wikipedia's perspective) is coverage in independent reliable sources about the 2018 Winter Olympics. Yes, there are sources that discuss the issue, so what? There are sources discussing people not supporting the Olympics because: they segregate male and female athletes, (Country X) will be represented, (Country Y) will not be represented, the games are "too secular", environmental impact, etc. The only time we should mention any of these is if articles discussing the 2018 Winter Olympics in general regularly discuss the issue. North Korea? Yes, sources discussing the games in general regularly discuss North Korea. Dog and cat meat? No, sources discussing the games in general do not regularly discuss dog and cat meat. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Doesnt matter if not on this 2018 page, data about 2018 Winter Olympic Boycott was put on pages other than 2018 Winter Oylmpics (Irony). Juror1 (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Juror1 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of GADFLY46. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unified Korea ice hockey team

How do we deal with this development, now that the IOC confirmed there will be a joint-North Korea-South Korea women's ice hockey team? Should an article, Unified Korea team at the 2018 Winter Olympics or Korea national women's ice hockey team be created or note of this fact in both North Korea at the 2018 Winter Olympics and South Korea at the 2018 Winter Olympics articles under a subsection on ice hockey? Also would the medals count for South Korea in case the Unified team made a podium finish?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't the IOC that confirmed the formation yet. It was the two Koreas. Though it would still be helpful in how to deal with the hypothetical issue.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

We will have to wait to see if north koreans actually end up on the team. Neither the IOC nor the IIHF has confirmed that this is okay. It was a long negotiation to allow the women's team entry at all, I would be surprised if the IIHF supports this. Historically the germans had a unified team, they did not enter a combined team though, so there is no precendence for how to handle this. If it happens. Additionally the players and coaches are reportedly not in favor of giving up spots on a team that has trained together for over a year.

Additionally the IBSF is reporting that there will be a combined 4-man bobsleigh entry, but it still needs approval. I think we need to be cautious in our conclusions.18abruce (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The IBSF (as well as the media) say there could be a combined bobsleigh entry, so anything concerning that would be just speculation. As for the hockey team, the media says that there will be a combined team, so as far as we are concerned, we report that there will be one, until proven otherwise. Concerning the medal count, we don't need to think about that until actual medals are won and even then the IOC will without a doubt come up with a way to tally them so that we don't have to. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Except that IBSF story, and the original release about the hockey team, both state that they are awaiting approval on Saturday in Lausanne. It is the Koreans saying that there will be a joint hockey team, not the governing bodies who run the competition. The difference, interestingly, is that the actual sporting body who runs bobsleigh is trying to do it, and are clear that it is the IOC who has to approve. The hockey team has neither met approval yet, nor is the governing body participating in promoting it. Just to add, "the media" as you say are not united in saying there will be a combined team, the CBC for instance (here) explains the situation with a major banner saying "IOC approval still pending". And I would say that presenting that it is determined, before approval has been granted, is speculation.18abruce (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

For the Youth Olympics events containing more than one NOC was included in the relevant NOCs' page while noting the nationality of the athlete so there is no need for a Unified Korea team at the 2018 Winter Olympics page. Of course if the IOC decides to revive the ZZX code for the team we could create a page for Mixed teams at the Olympics. A page similar to Great Britain women's Olympic football team maybe needed. Of course this is all speculation. JoshMartini007 (talk) 19:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The IOC has just allowed the joint Korean ice hockey team and the Unified Korea team will use a separate code (which is COR) from North and South Korea.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no "Korea" (COR) NOC, so it shouldn't be listed under the heading "Participating National Olympic Committees". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

But then the Olympic Athlete From Russia (since the Russian NOC is technically banned) and the past Independent/Refugee teams also had no NOCs?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Leave PRK/KOR separately. As for hockey, both country pages can explain the situation and on this article. There is no need for a Korea at the 2018 Winter Olympics page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a new page is warranted. I believe it is sufficient to document the athletes on their own NOC pages with explanation. If there are other sports that end up having combined teams (downhill team event, x-country relay, bobsleigh 4-man) I am sure we could revisit the discussion. I do believe that we should follow the IOC's lead if they decide to have something distinctly separate for the hockey team, but why not wait on them.18abruce (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

How do we deal about the infoboxes on the respective North/South Korea NOC pages? Do we include the the women's ice hockey players in the number of athletes competing for the South and North Korea NOCs (e.g. 22 athletes in 5 sports for North Korea instead of 10 sports in 4 sports) given that the IOC has a separate designation for the Unified Korea ice hockey team which is COR.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding to this discussion, personally, I feel that it is a better idea to have a separate page and, maybe, transclude the ice hockey section to the North and South Korea's individual pages. The ice hockey team is technically competing under a separate flag, representing both the North and the South. There are also other similar pages created for unified Olympic teams, such as Mixed teams at the Olympics, Australasia at the Olympics, United Team of Germany and Unified Team at the Olympics. A unified Korea team also competed in the World Table Tennis Championships and FIFA World Youth Championship, which has a separate page named Korea Team. Since it is the first time both Koreas competed under a unified flag, I believe it is notable enough to have a separate article, rather than just redirecting it to a generic disambiguation page and then adding the same explaination on both the North Korea and the South Korea Olympic pages. I do hope this can be considered. (A draft of the proposed article is available in my sandbox.) Wpeneditor (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Already article Korea Team is exists. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: If North Korea and South Korea play the game as one team, you can add "Olympic" in article Korea Team, like United Team of Germany. And already North Korea, South Korea and IOC agreed to form unified team about 1 game. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, let's back up a step

We now have six people going in four different directions, and it would probably be best if we all figured out what the hell is going on. Currently we have:

• Korea Team - covers the Olympics and the '91 table tennis/athletics team
• Korea at the Olympics
• Korea at the 2018 Winter Olympics - copy/paste of some of the main "Olympics" page
• South Korea women's national ice hockey team, which is currently being linked for the "combined" team
• North Korea women's national ice hockey team, which (correctly I think) just mentions the combined team with a link

There seems to be enough interest in starting a page for  Korea, so here's my proposal:

• Korea Team stays as it currently is - it discusses '91 and the 2018 Olympics in brief (as an overview page)
• Korea at the Olympics stays as currently stands, since it provides the link between the two countries
• Korea at the 2018 Winter Olympics becomes the official location for the ice hockey information. The South and North women's team pages will mention the merger and link to the COR page. Going forward any time women's ice hockey is linked, it will be {{flagIOC|COR|2018 Winter}} (which will display  Korea).

Does that sound acceptable? Primefac (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

pings all around: @Hariboneagle927, Finnusertop, Garam, 18abruce, Wpeneditor, and Sportsfan 1234: Primefac (talk) 17:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The Korea at the Korea at the 2018 Winter Olympics was done to link to the parade page. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Seems okay to me.18abruce (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

That sounds great, thanks for collating and summarising the whole discussion! Wpeneditor (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

This does not directly deal with whether COR should be listed as a separate NOC, or does it. I believed that it meant that we note its existence and link to it, but do not list it as a NOC. Perhaps I am incorrect.18abruce (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

COR is not a NOC; at least, according to the IOC itself, which just said they would participate under the acronym. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I appear to have got embroiled in an edit war over it. I have asked the brand new user to discuss their rationale, hopefully they do.18abruce (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully. I have added an explanatory note to the NOC list to explain the situation. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Athlete count of KOR, PRK, and COR

Now there seems to be a consensus on the Unified Korea team. I will bring up the issue on how to deal with the athlete count in the North Korea at the 2018 Winter Olympics (PRK), South Korea at the 2018 Winter Olympics (KOR), and Korea at the 2018 Winter Olympics (COR). (as well as the Ice hockey at the 2018 Winter Olympics for the NOCs/teams involved). Do we have to subtract the 35 athletes competing under COR from KOR, and PRK?

Note that reports often include the 12 North Korean athletes who will compete for the Unified ice hockey team as part of the overall North Korean delegation which is fact. But are they really part of the North Korean team that will compete under the code PRK? Or are we going to wait for the official website to list the participating teams and NOCs (and the no. of athletes for each team)?Hariboneagle927 (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I think your last suggestion is the best, mostly because one can make the argument for going either way (which could be considered OR): all of the players are technically part of their home-country's NOC, but none of the players are playing for said NOC. No harm in waiting. Primefac (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The website has now updated. It lists Korea (COR) as a separate "NOC" with 35 athletes. North Korea does not list any ice hockey players, while South Korea lists only the 25 male ice hockey athletes. So I think we should do the same for the respective articles of the relevant "Countries at the 2018 Winter Olympics" articles.

And Korea is listed as a separate NOC and a separate "country" in the website's countries list. Should we list Korea in the Participating NOCs now? We have listed non-countries NOCs before such as the Refugee Olympic Team in the 2016 Olympics despite not being represented by a single NOC.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Number of competitors

So I've noticed that recently there has been a lot of back-and-forth regarding the total number of competitors from each country. I also notice that each country has a "Competitors" section which breaks down the total number by sport. Would it make sense to transclude those numbers into this article so that they are always updated when new information is added? It would also create conformity between the individual articles and this one. For example,  Olympic Athletes from Russia's numbers just got updated and if we transclude the "120" it would automatically update here (upon page purge). Primefac (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I personally think the numbers being used are premature anyway. In the case of OAR we have press releases saying "169" but no breakdown, so we don't really know who is coming yet and if that number is actual participants. For instance Brazil's NOC is listing ten athletes going to Pyongchang, however one of the listed bobsleighers (if that is a word) will not be a participant and is not part of the bobsleigh "qualified total".18abruce (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is another reason why I was thinking transclusion might work, but now I'm starting to think that we should just have no numbers until the games actually start. If my bold change is improper, I don't particularly mind being reverted, but I think it will cut down on some of the back-and-forth. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe it to be the right move, particularly with all the last minute changes because of the OAR situation. It will just be non-stop changes for no purpose otherwise. Additionally I think what is happening is people are trying to be the first one in, to get the "scoop", rather than trying to wait and get it right.18abruce (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Flu outbreak

There are two strains of influenza affecting the Korean peninsula, is that concern an entry possible for this article? --Osplace 22:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

References

I personally don't think so. If it directly affects the Games themselves (and it's not just theoretical/CRYSTAL talk) then maybe it can be added, but right now I'd say it's too soon for it to be worth mentioning. Primefac (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Osplace: I remember last year at the IAAF athletics world championships there was norovirus outbreak that lead to many athletes and officials having to be quarantined and unable to compete. If this year's outbreak gets to a level similar to that of the aforementioned scenario, then inclusion would be warranted. I agree with Primefac that it is too soon yet but that doesn't mean we can include it later if the situation worsens. Let's just hope that it doesn't get to that stage! Jith12 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I agree. --Osplace 00:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

NOC Participant numbers

Is it now ok for us to reinstate the official participating athlete numbers along side each NOC now we are only five days away from the start of competition? (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:D8EE:9DFA:1DC4:45BF (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC))

Are there official participating numbers? Primefac (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

There should be and are normally listed down on the main article. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4C0A:7BBE:413B:BBF8 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC))

Sorry, my query was a bit vague. Are there official published numbers for the number participating from each country? Primefac (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes in a manner of speaking they are always added to the article and were up until earlier in the week when they got removed as some of the figures were not quite official but we should be properly at a stage where we can readd the numbers. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4C0A:7BBE:413B:BBF8 (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC))

Yes there are official counts as listed on each NOC page in the official website's "Countries list". An example is the page for South Korea which lists the breakdown of athletes by sport.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

So why are we not adding the numbers to the article as of yet? (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:ACAA:2EC6:9A25:C79A (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC))

Because I haven't finished editing the page yet. Hold yer horses. Primefac (talk) 13:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but.... Those totals have errors. For instance, look at Canada in Short Track; you cannot have a total of 11. Perhaps that is the only error but I will keep looking. For some reason Olivier Jean (a former short track competitor who now races mass start in long track) has been added to Canada's total. Hopefully that is the only one like that.18abruce (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Um... why not? If something's wrong, it should obviously be fixed, but I'm just going off the official numbers. I won't be surprised if there are small tweaks between now and the end of the Games, but my main concern a few days ago was having the list changing every half-hour as more entries were finalized. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

A nation can only qualify a maximum of 5 men and 5 women in short track. It is kind of funny that the first one I checked had the only error I can find. There may be other minor situations like 2014 had with Latvian skater Silovs who competed in multiple sports, or there was a Japanese snowboarder who competed in multiple disciplines (so the qualified total and the number of athletes did not match). I emphasize that these are minor issues and taking the totals from the official lists like you did is the way to go. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting... the individual lists for short track only show five each, so maybe the 11th is someone in the the 5000m relay? Primefac (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The extra is Olivier Jean. If you look up by "country" and then Canada, then click on the total of 6 or 11 for short track, his name comes up. He has switched to long track since the last olympics, and is showing up under the relay for short track for some reason. He is definitely not eligible there, and already is listed as a mass start competitor in long track.18abruce (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

There are also small issues in regards to Olga Graf, Erik Guay, and Stepan Fedorov. Guay could still be replaced but is not competing, I don't know if OAR can replace Graf, who has said she is not competing. Fedorov is not listed in the country total for OAR (luge), but is listed in the men's luge competition. I think, in each case, we should just wait to see what else changes during the week.18abruce (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

notes to athlete counts

Currently both Canada (Olivier Jean), and Netherlands (Jorien ter Mors), have said athletes counted twice at the official olympic site. They should both have their total rendered as one less than the offical site (226 and 33). I don't know if Canada should have their count further modified for Erik Guay, or OAR for Olga Graf.18abruce (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Olivier Jean and Olga Graf entries have been remedied. In the case of Erik Guay, it is well known that he is not going to compete, but Canada has not returned the quota (as Sweden and Togo have), or named a replacement. There are a few discrepancies between the FIS and the official IOC page, but all appear to be a question of the IOC page needing updating, except for the USA and nordic combined; which I cannot explain.18abruce (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is trying to check counts, all hell has broken loose with the Alpine totals on the IOC site. Hopefully it is repaired soon.18abruce (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Pyeongchang Olympic Stadium

Is it possible to upload a photo of the Pyeongchang Olympic Stadium at all? (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:F4FC:2814:5F3C:9D10 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC))

You need a username to do that. Soerfm (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sport, disciplines, events

I hope I can get a clarification of the number of sports, events and disciplines. The infobox reads: "102 in 7 sports (15 disciplines)"...the number of disciplines is not written in the code, but seems to be calculated (how?). The body of the articles reads: "102 events in 15 sports".

Which is correct and why? Soerfm (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sports The 2018 Winter Olympics will feature 102 events in 15 sports, making it the first Winter Olympics to surpass 100 medal events. Four new disciplines in existing sports were introduced to the Winter Olympic programme in Pyeongchang, including big air snowboarding, mixed doubles curling, mass start speed skating, and mixed team alpine skiing.

A sport is defined as a single federation, for example swimming is not a sport at the Summer Olympics, aquatics is. There are seven sport federations at the Winter Olympics; International Skating Union (figure skating, short track speed skating and long track speed skating), International Ice Hockey Federation (ice hockey), World Curling Federation (curling), International Ski Federation (alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, freestyle skiing, nordic combined, ski jumping and snowboarding), International Biathlon Union (biathlon), International Luge Federation (luge) and International Bobsled and Skeleton Federation (bobsled and skeleton). JoshMartini007 (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Soerfm (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarification for the commencing date of the 2018 Winter Olympics

The 2018 Winter Olympics will commence on the 9th of February and will end up on the 25th of February, 2018 but except for the fact that, curling events will progress from 8th of February, 2018 (from today onwards). Abishe (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This happens in every olympics, the official starting date is listed as the date when the opening ceremonies take place. It makes it ambiguous and odd, but you will find that the curling and ski jumping events that already began will be listed as taking place on "day –1" and there will be events on "day 0" (here for instance). The official site has a countdown clock that is set to the opening ceremonies here for instance. It is usually to allow team sports to have enough time, but in the winter it is more about sports sharing venues and fitting everything in. Hopefully that is helpful in some way. It appears that the ceremonial opening of the games is what the date is attached to.18abruce (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The Games go from the moment they are declared open by the Head of state to the time they are declared closed by the IOC President. Hektor (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Olympic Flag issue

The Olympic flag.

Why does the Olympic flag got to have rims in it when it clearly doesn’t, can we please have a look at this? (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:F511:2277:8F63:FB4E (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC))

https://www.olympic.org/olympic-rings says the rings were modified in 2010 to where there is no white rims around the rings. I agree it should be changed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

A new ISU best score was set in figure skating. WHO?

Please someone provide some details. Name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.149.192.135 (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you are thinking of Alina Zagitova(?) Soerfm (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

ski jumping team event

It appears that South Korea is entered in the team event despite not qualifying enough jumpers. The rules say, "In order for a team to participate in the Men’s Team competition, the host must have earned the required four (4) quota places within the maximum total quota, and the athletes are eligible" so I don't get it. If anyone has an explanation it would be appreciated.18abruce (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@18abruce: As the host nation South Korea gets an automatic entry into every event.331dot (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@331dot: No they don't, that is a myth. There are numerous alpine and cross-country events with no Koreans, and other events as well. I was hoping for actual insight into why the rules were not adhered to. For instance initially the hockey teams were told no, but the IIHF and IOC were persuaded to change there minds about their participation in September of 2014. There must have been some special exemption to place the quota over the maximum after qualification was done. I guessed that since there were not 12 nations with enough qualified participants the FIS allowed it, but was looking for some statement to that effect.18abruce (talk)

They get an automatic entry but that does not mean they have athletes to use it. I've reviewed several of the articles on event qualification and they all mentioned the host getting an entry. 331dot (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Look, they did not qualify enough Ski Jumpers to qualify for the team event, I quoted the relevant rule above that comes from the official rules. In the cross-country skiing relays, where there are 25 eligible male south koreans, but only 2 qualified, they could not compete. Nordic combined has virtually the same rules for qualification as ski jumping, yet they are not competing in the team event there. Something peculiar happened in ski jumping because (I can only guess) there were not the projected 12 teams, but there is no, I repeat no provision for the host participation in the rules (for the team event). Or for going over the quota limit, as some other sports do. So the FIS decided at some point to do something outside the rules, like the IIHF saying that the men's hockey team had to be in the top 18 by 2014, which they weren't, but something was worked out anyway.18abruce (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it was not obvious that they only qualified two ski jumpers, and I did not say that. A vital detail, I apologize for leaving that out.18abruce (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

All I know is that my entire life the host country has gotten an automatic entry into every event in the Olympics assuming the country has the people to participate. I don't recall the IOC changing that policy. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not up to the IOC, it is up to the appropriate sporting body in partnership with the IOC. The 2004 Greek field hockey team tested it in court and lost. There are other examples where hosts came up short in trying to fulfill minimum standards; most recently Brazil women's field hockey team.18abruce (talk) 23:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That case actually had nothing to do with the fact that the Greeks were hosting, if you read the article you posted, though that just furthers your point - they apparently didn't even try to argue they should qualify automatically as host. Smartyllama (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Russia on participation map

Strictly speaking, Russia is not a participant in these Games due to the IOC ban. Russian OAR athletes are technically competing for themselves and not Russia. The map has Russia colored Green as a participant; it should either be not colored at all or colored differently to indicate the ban. 331dot (talk)•

Any other opinions on this? 331dot (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Bobsled/Bobsleigh

Is there some particular reasoning behind when the sport is referred to as "bobsled" and when it's called "bobsleigh"? There should be some consistent rule applied in this article, and indeed across Wikipedia.Fridge Leprechaun (talk) 11:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe officially the event is called "Bobsleigh" but it is commonly called "bobsled". It might also depend on your local variety of English. 331dot (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"Bobsleigh" is UK English and "Bobsled" is US English but other than that they are totally interchangeable. It looks as if we are mostly using the term "bobsleigh" throughout these olympic pages so we should probably change "bobsled" > "bobsleigh" wherever it crops up for consistency. Or does it really matter? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Technical innovations section

The "Showcase of technical innovations" section reads like a promotional piece for Samsung. Is this really a large enough portion of the coverage surrounding the Olympics to warrant such a section? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

For the paragraph 3.8 - Records

Please consider if these two "records" should be added:

• Norway managed to win more medals in one single Olympic tournament than any nation before, by winning a total of 39 medals. However, because of the many new events a higher total of medals were awarded, and therefore Norway did not exceed USA (from the 2010 Olympics) if measured in percentage of all awarded medals.
• Marit Bjørgen of Norway managed to win enough medals to become //the best olympian// (sorry Phelps!, that should read Winter Olympian) of all times.

Rgds - TorSch (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

(1) Yes granted, but the fact is they won more medals and that's what most people would consider to be an achievement, no matter how may new events there are. Maybe in 4 years time there will be even more events, and some other team will benefit by winning more than 39 medals!
(2) Yes, good spot, will add to list...
Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Dates up front on all Records in section 3.8?

This is honestly not just a case of WP:JDLI
I think it looks bad having the date at the beginning of all bullet points, call it boring, rigid, repetitive, whatever, it's bad practice because it bores the reader, focuses too much attention on the date rather than the main message inside the bullet point, and doesn't provide a good informal narrative in the context of wowing the reader with these amazing facts!
Out of interest, cf. equivalent records list for 2014 winter games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_and_Olympic_records_set_at_the_2014_Winter_Olympics#Other_records
Here no dates are quoted at all... To be consistent we should perhaps remove the dates altogether in the current article!?
I'm open to suggestions and if there's serious opposition then I'll drop it.
I already made the change at 15:17 today (25 Feb) but someone reverted it. @Davey2010 that was you!
Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If we have it as "X got a medal in x" the reader won't really know it's in chronilogical order whereas having the dates first the reader will obviously know it's in order, It's a case of preference here me thinks, I don't really see an issue with the way it is. –Davey2010^Talk 22:42, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as each record has a link through to the related wiki page, then the interested reader can easily find out the date that it happened by following up the link if they can be bothered. So unless there are any strong objections I will probably remove the dates here altogether (at some point) but we will aim to keep them in chronological order anyway! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

OK seeing as no-one else seems to have an opinion on this after several days I've decided to go ahead and remove all the explicit date references in the Records entries and make the section a bit more readable and less like a catalog. Watch this space! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ester Ledecká won golds with 2 different types of equipment?

There's some confusion over what exactly Ester Ledecká has achieved... OK so Jan.Kamenicek first introduced the Ester Ledecká entry yesterday (24 Feb) at 19:34 and edited it a couple of times until it read as follows:

<<On 24 February, Ester Ledecká of the Czech Republic won snowboarding parallel giant slalom after having won skiing super-G on the 17 February, thus becoming the first woman who won the Winter Olympics in two different sports and the first athlete who won in two unrelated events. She became also the first athlete competing at the Winter Olympics in both alpine skiing and snowboarding.>>

The bold bits were added by me just now to show that Jan.Kamenicek was clearly of the opinion that Ledecká had set two different records. So I went to look at the Ester Ledecká article and there in the intro it states:

<<...She is the first person to win two gold medals at the same Winter Olympics using two different types of equipment (skis and a snowboard). She is the second woman to win gold in two separate disciplines after Anfisa Reztsova, and the first woman to do so in a single Winter Olympics...>>

Again it looks as if she is being cited as achieving two separate records. But there's no citation for it there either. It can't be denied that she won golds using two different types of equipment - skis and snowboard (which are definitely quite different physically) - whereas a speed skater and a short track speed skater both wear speed skates (although I've been told that hinged blades were a 'thing' in long track for a while).

@Jan.Kamenicek - can you throw any more light on this please?
@LRataplan - Jorien ter Mors should NOT get this accolade as she didn't get two golds! Her second one was a bronze medal.

If this can't be easily cleared up, it might be best to just drop the bit about the equipment and stick with her main achievement which was to win two golds in two sports in one Winter Olympics. Then the 'equipment' ambiguity will remain in the Ester Ledecká article where it will probably go unnoticed. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: I used the BBC report from 24 February as a source of the info. There is written that she became 1) ... the first woman to claim gold medals in two sports at a Winter Olympics. and that she is 2) ... the fifth athlete to win in two sports at one Games and the first in unrelated events, with the previous double wins coming in Nordic events. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for delving into this, folks :-) Jorien ter Mors obviously didn't win two golds and as such didn't win in two different sports, no contest there. Sorry if I confused things. Now, the page originally stated that "In so doing, she became the first woman to win the Winter Olympics in two separate sports, as well as the first person to win two gold medals at the same Winter Olympics in two unrelated events" (Revision as of 00:12, 25 February 2018). I had and have serious beef with that, but I think you both do too.

Short track and long track have vastly different 'strategy and technique' (I'm borrowing from the BBC article listed above), as well as different equipment. The biggest difference is simply the track. There just is no comparison other than 'flat and made of ice' and we can probably all agree Ice Dancing really is a different sport. The skates are also totally different. The so-called clap skate (hinged skate) is VERY current and VERY important in long track (check out the Nagano Olympics), while on the short track they're simply banned from use. But I feel that how all this affects the debate here is mostly a matter of opinion.

My edits were (or so I tried) motivated by adhering to the definition of sports, disciplines and events following from the article itself, which is congruent with earlier articles on Olympic Games. Here Alpine Skiing, Snowboarding, Speed Skating and Short Track Speed Skating are all listed as different sports. Within these sports, there are several events. Winning several events within one sport is nothing new and happens all the time (all hail Kjeld Nuis), winning medals in different *sports* is what Ter Mors pioneered, and winning *gold* medals in different sports is what Ledecka did.

Disciplines, again according to the article (see the link on the pictograms), are different competition formats within a sport, but the use of this term is much less prominent. Freestyle skiing and snowboarding are both divided in five disciplines each, the main difference being the track (!) and there are two disciplines in alpine skiing (speed and technical). Winning seperate disciplines, I assume, has happened before and this is what the BBC might be going on about. The linked article talks about precedent set in "Nordic events", and I'm unsure whether the BBC uses the same distinction as Wikipedia. If however there's indeed five people with (gold) medals in two of the Nordic sports (cross-country skiing, biathlon, nordic combined) then technically, Ter Mors and (in the case of two golds) Ledecka do not have a record. But I wouldn't know about that. Dutch press was going on incessantly about Ter Mors' two-sport-achievement, I could provide a ton of source material - but I'm not sure they wouldn't be making the same error as the BBC. For the time being, I suggest we drop the notion of a double record based on equipment, discipline or whatever and just mention the achievements of Ter Mors winning medals, and Ledecka winning gold in two sports, as Rodney Baggins suggests. LRataplan (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting... I think we've talked ourselves into a solution anyway! I will just remove the bit about the equipment and stick to the fact that she was the first woman to claim gold medals in two sports at a Winter Olympics. That'll do it. I'm not proposing to start up a discussion on the Ester Ledecká page, someone else can worry about that. So glad we've cleared this up. It think it's a case of tenuous info being picked up from an ill-informed BBC journalist and then being blown out of proportion. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Jorien ter Mors entry in Records section

Hello again, this is specifically meant for @LRataplan but anyone else is welcome to weigh in if interested!

We need to amend the Jorien ter Mors entry to indicate that she was specifically the 1st female to win medals in two different sports at one Winter Olympics because it's already been done a few times at the summer games.

• Two women won Olympic medals in two different sports at the 1924 summer olympics in Paris: they were American diver/swimmer Aileen Riggin & Swedish diver/swimmer Hjördis Töpel. Riggin was only 18 when she won silver in diving and bronze in swimming and Töpel won bronze in both diving & swimming.
• At the 1936 summer Olympics in Berlin, American diver/swimmer Katherine Rawls won silver in diving and bronze in swimming.

--- It seems that diving and swimming combo's were the in thing back in the 1920's and 1930's! So even though it's happened at least 3 times before at the summer olympics, no other female has ever done it at a winter olympics hence Jorien ter Mors does indeed go down in history for that!

So I've changed her entry to: "In doing so, she became the first female athlete to win Olympic medals in two different sports at a single Winter Games."

Just out of interest, whilst digging around I also found these women who won Olympic medals in two different sports but at separate summer olympics: American Helen Wainwright won silver in diving in 1920 (Antwerp) and another silver in swimming in 1924 (Paris); German Roswitha Krause won medals in swimming & team handball, but at various different games (1968, 1976, 1980); and Briton Rebecca Romero won silver in rowing in 2004 (Athens) and gold in track cycling in 2008 (Beijing).

All fascinating stuff :) Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating indeed, and a comprehensive statement that fully covers her record (although I must admit it's looking less and less glamorous ;) I noticed in the material you linked there is also a male skater who did both short track and long track medals: Eric Flaim). The English article on Ter Mors seems to have been edited already, so I updated the Dutch one instead :P LRataplan (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually I've just tweaked the English article on Jorien ter Mors because it didn't state that it was at a Winter games! Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed citations because they were showing up underneath next section. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Srobidx edits

I am concerned about this edit in particular. What they added seemed to be very passionate and promotional, and places heavy emphasis on several brands that are Worldwide Olympic Partners, specifically Intel and Samsung. When asked if they had any affiliation with the subjects they were writing about, they dodged the question entirely and accused me of trying to obscure the Olympics' purpose as a platform for new technologies and being ignorant of the "significance of ever growing dynamics between sports and tech". I suspect a COI. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: One way of moving this on would be to create a separate article called "Technical Innovations at 2018 Winter Olympics" with a link through to it from the main intro in the current article. It would have a red link (Page does not exist) until the new tech page was approved/published but then it would be available to be expanded in the future with links to it from other sporting events. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't suspect a COI here, rather, I strongly suspect Srobidx of fanboy (or fangirl) behaviour. Passionate, indeed, and that's not a crime :) but the relevance of the mentioned showcased tech improvements is not given and would be debatable at best. "Launching of 5G in winter olympic 2018 along with the use LED drone is something that has never been done before in human's history"? False & false. The short track sensor suit has specifically NOT been used at the Games (and 'peppered with' can, thanks to our contributor, now quantified as 'having 5'), and the possibly interesting development of the MIPS crash helmets is completely ignored, while those DO change competition circumstances for athletes. Add the liberal use of marketing adjectives (enormous, unsurpassed) in his or her edit, and we can say Srobidx' edit does not meet notability and neutrality guidelines. And my assuming good faith is seriously hampered by his or her complete absence of etiquette on User_talk:ViperSnake151. That was actually pretty rude and warrants informing an admin. I suggest we do not move towards a compromise as long as his or her additions are of unproven merit, instead, we chalk this up to a lack of competence and move on. LRataplan (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Is 2018 Winter Olympics singular or plural?

Over the past couple of weeks, various people have been batting this around by editing and re-editing the first sentence of the current article. The consensus was reached that Olympics is a singular collective noun. The test is to ask yourself: "is there such a thing as an Olympic? What exactly is an Olympic then?" If there is such a thing, then 'Olympics' must be more than one 'Olympic', but the answer is clearly NO. So we can treat 'Olympics' as the singular noun.

Type "Olympics singular or plural" into Google Search and you get the following:

>We at ESL Library decided to go with “the Olympics” + singular verb and “the Olympic Games” + plural verb. Basically, “the Olympics” is a collective noun like team or United States, and usually takes a singular verb. ESL Library. 29 Jul 2012 See Ref: http://blog.esllibrary.com/2012/07/29/olympics-singular-or-plural/

This does have repercussions for other olympics pages, e.g. Winter Olympic Games reads "The Winter Olympic Games (French: Jeux olympiques d'hiver) is a major international sporting event... " which is clearly wrong using the current logic.

Please also refer to my edits on 28 Feb (00:08) and 25 Feb (13:06). Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Whoops, 'singular collective verb' should be 'singular collective noun' in previous edit summary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please also see Dates up front on all Records in section 3.8? above. As no-one seems to have a strong opinion on this either way, I shall probably move on this today, so don't be surprised if the Records section changes significantly later on.Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Image of political protesters in North Korean relations section

There has been an ongoing argument on the main page about the image of political protesters in the North Korean relations section. This has rapidly escalated into an edit war and one or both of you are liable to be reported if you make any further reversions. For the record, I have always thought this picture was rather contentious and it would perhaps be best left out altogether, the current argument being proof that even though it represents cited fact, the very fact that Wikipedia has chosen to include the image on a page that is otherwise about a friendly global sporting event perhaps indicates a political stance. Maybe the section would be best left as plain text without any images or a less contentious image used instead? See WP:NPOVFAQ I have not deleted the image this time, just commented it out in the meantime. Please try to propose a compromise through negotiating here rather than arguing via your edit summaries.
The route to a sensible solution might be to get a translation of the text on the protest banner... Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm the original uploader. There is no contentious comment on the card. In Korean, it says "평양 올림픽 반대 문재앙," verbatim. Even if you don't know Korean, you can confirm it by comparing the figure of the letters to the picture. It means, "평양 = Pyongyang," "올림픽 = Olympics," "반대 = Opposition," "문 = President Moon's Sir Name," "재앙 = Disaster." You can also confirm this by Google translator or something.

I don't see any contentious or inappropriate language here. It is just an example of the anti-Moon protests during the Olympics, which was cited in the article. It is a fact that there were a series of anti-Moon protests regarding the Olympics issue in South Korea. There is no reason to delete the factual depiction of the protests.

The users who vandalize the photo are strongly poltically oriented and do not want any criticism against President Moon to be displayed. They are the ones who harm neutrality in the article.

For these reasons, there is no grounds for the deletion of the photo. --Sphinx222 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Both parties are currently blocked as edit warring for 24 hours. Unblock appeals are ongoing under 0RR (on this article) clause, it seems. — regards, Revi 09:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It is freedom of expression for each to accuse North Korea of participating in the PyeongChang Olympics. However, the photo contains the word 'disaster' which insults the leader of the Republic of Korea. This is obvious defamation and can not be 'political diversity'. If you need a related image, please post a neutral image with no controversy.--Mobius6 (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this stance. The fact that the image has led to this "discussion" shows that it is indeed controversial and maybe neutrality would be better served by using an alternative image that doesn't use the word 'disaster' in possible reference to the South Korean leader. Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Deleting this photo would be a ridiculous censorship. Even more derogatory terms on protester banners are currently displayed in many Wikipedia articles without problem. In Protests against Donald Trump, there is a picture of a banner saying "Fuck Trump."[1] Also, in Efforts to impeach Donald Trump, there is a picture of a banner with Swastika calling Trump "Chump."[2] No one raises an issue about those photos, because it is merely depicting the nature of the protest. And I don't think the word "Disaster" is more contentious, comparing to those terms.

The topic of the paragraph is about anti-Moon protests against the South Korean government's pro-North Korean measures in the Olympics. It is relevant to the sourced content and it should be preserved. For your information, Mobius6 also vandalized some positive images of the former conservative South Korean president in the Olympics article in Korean Wikipedia without reason. This user is doing this just because he/she is super politically oriented. If images in Wikipedia articles are censored by such extreme political factions, it would be the real neutrality problem. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I do see your point. I have also realised that I was probably at fault by commenting out the image this morning because the stable version of the page was the one with the image in before you two started arguing about it, but your incessant bickering to and fro via the edit summaries was doing my head in quite frankly so I made an executive decision! I'll leave it alone for now though to avoid "poking the snake" and let you decide what to do when your 72 hours 0RR is up. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not want Olympic documents to be used for political publicity. So I removed the 'cheerful past presidential photo' in the Korean Wikipedia 'Olympic venue selection' paragraph. Then I added 'Olympic pictures,' 'Sports photos.' I think this is a neutral editing activity. The selection of the Olympic host city was made by the IOC. The addition of photos of 'cheerful past presidents' to the 'selected host city' paragraph doubts the purpose of political publicity. The protagonist of the Olympics is sports players. Publicity of the conservative politics, claims (protest) photographs make the document biased. I think the photo attached to the "Trump Impeachment demonstration" in the discussion is also defamatory, and the photo is used in the document on the impeachment of Trump. However, the "protest photo of the problem" was attached to the official Olympic Games document. The content of the 'Official Olympic Games' is not the 'impeachment of the Korean President'. Photographs containing words that insult the "national leader of Korea" should be removed. And the user has a history of cleverly revising the Democratic presidential document.

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] --Mobius6 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Your argument is absurd. If there was a political controversy in the Olympics, it is also a part of the Olympics. Nazi Germany's 1936 Summer Olympics article has a bunch of political images as well. And ironically, the South Korean protesters here are opposing the South Korean government's political abuse of the Olympics. Also, my content addition in the political figure article and your vandalism of political content in the Olympics article have nothing in common. --Cyberdoomslayer (talk) 07:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I argued that the Olympic document should not be used for "political publicity" purposes. Do not misinterpret my argument. In your photo of the Berlin Olympics document you did not mean "political publicity" or "insulting phrase". Again, if you need a picture in your document, you'll need to post a "picture that does not contain an insulting phrase."--Mobius6 (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

So "mass displays of Nazi propaganda" aren't "political publicity"? In the West, the swastika has become incredibly insulting. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The Nazi photographs contained in the Berlin Olympics are not used as 'political promotions'. This is being used to support the 'objective fact' that was done in the regime at the time. So it is not insulting. However, the picture we are discussing in the discussion is generalizing 'some political opinions'. This is undermining neutrality.--Mobius6 (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)